Mideast Diplomacy Buzzing, But Is Anyone Really Budging?

February 24, 1985|By Jonathan Broder, Chicago Tribune.

JERUSALEM — In Vienna, American and Soviet diplomats hold their first discussions on the Middle East in more than seven years.

In Rome, Israeli Premier Shimon Peres discusses the problems of the region with Italian leader Bettino Craxi and Pope John Paul II, then says he is ready to go to Amman to talk peace with Jordan`s King Hussein.

Organization leader Yasser Arafat, who in turn had consulted with Hussein on a joint peace strategy.

Meanwhile, Washington is preparing for a visit next month by Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak. Mubarak is expected to press the Reagan

administration to act on the Hussein-Arafat accord, which was approved Wednesday in Tunis by the PLO Executive Committee.

Washington also played host recently to Saudi King Fahd, who urged the United States to resume its role as the honest broker of Middle East diplomacy.

At the same time, dovish Israeli lawmakers met Arafat and other PLO leaders in Tunis.

Amid this whirlwind of international statesmanship, the Middle East pot is stirring once again, but as usual it is unclear whether the activity spanning four continents will produce a breakthrough toward peace or simply more ships of state passing in the night.

Typically, professional observers of the Middle East here view the pot as either half full or half empty.

``This year could be the important year for peace,`` says Israeli statesman Abba Eban. Counters Mark Heller, a political scientist at Tel Aviv University: ``There is a lot more motion than movement. I don`t have any sense that there is any grand design or big picture being fitted together.``

Nonetheless, the motion has begun to fill a diplomatic void after the start of Israel`s military withdrawal from southern Lebanon. Until Jerusalem`s decision last month to retreat from Lebanon after 2 1/2 years of occupation, Middle East diplomacy had been effectively frozen.

Of all the developments since then, none is more intriguing than the Jordan-PLO agreement, the details of which Jordan released Saturday.

The ``formula for joint action`` calls for the PLO to take part in a

``joint Arab delegation`` to any negotiations with Israel and includes the principle of trading peace for occupied land.

Such negotiations should be based on ``all United Nations resolutions``

dealing with the Arab-Israeli conflict, the text of the agreement said. Israeli optimists interpret that as including Security Council Resolution 242 of 1967, which calls for Israeli withdrawal from occupied Arab territories in return for ``secure and recognized boundaries for all states in the region.`` The crucial word is ``recognized,`` which boils down to Arab recognition of Israel`s right to exist.

But a statement issued by the PLO Executive Committee in Tunis on Wednesday reaffirmed the PLO`s rejection of 242, because it refers to Palestinians only as refugees.

Nevertheless, Jordanian Prime Minister Ahmad Obeidat said Saturday that Arafat ``implicitly`` agreed to 242 and said, ``This is another important change that must not be underestimated.``

The Arafat-Hussein agreement also endorses Arab summit resolutions that call for establishment of an independent Palestinian state, which is totally unacceptable to Israel.

On its surface, the accord seems to be a serious attempt by the PLO and Jordan to make negotiations with Israel possible. Whether it provides the stuff of a breakthrough depends on how Arafat chooses to interpret it.

Given his record of ambiguity and equivocation, many Middle East-watchers are not optimistic. But in reaching the accord with Hussein, Arafat seems clearly to have thrown in his lot with the moderate Arab camp, which also includes Egypt and Saudi Arabia.

Predictably, the Arab rejectionist front, led by Syria, has sworn to torpedo the agreement.

Within the Palestinian movement, reaction to the accord mirrors the split between Arafat`s followers and the PLO`s Syrian-backed rebels.

The same kind of split characterizes Israeli reaction. Peres, with his Labor Party`s readiness to trade territory for peace, has asked for more specifics, careful not to close any doors. The accord ``represents a step forward from the Arab standpoint,`` he said.

To see whether there was substance behind the accord, Peres flew to Italy, where Craxi, as president of the Common Market Council this year, has been active in Middle East peace efforts.

Craxi, who had received a letter from Arafat outlining his understanding with Hussein, said the agreement did not go far enough in clarifying the PLO`s position and did not provide a framework for peace talks. But the Italian premier called the accord a ``move in the right direction.``